The Bill envisions several provisions to regulate work-life balance for private sector employees in India, reducing stress, burnout, and improving physical, mental, and emotional well-being. Some significant measures proposed include the Constitution of an Employees’ Welfare Authority (Section 3), the right to disconnect (Section 7), wages for working beyond ordinary work hours (Section 11), a remote work policy (Section 15), and the establishment of Digital Detox Centres (Section 18).

The Bill does not prohibit an employer from contacting employees outside work hours. Instead, it empowers employees to refuse answering such calls and not reply without fear of disciplinary action. If the employee works during out-of-work hours, they shall be entitled to overtime pay at the normal wage rate. The Bill obliges the government to provide digital counselling services for reasonable personal use of digital communication tools and counselling to employees for maintaining a healthy work-life balance (Section 17).

The Statement of Objects and Reasons correctly explains the necessity of the Bill, considering the increasing number of jobs that can be performed remotely, and the growing instances of burnout, stress, sleep deprivation of employees, the constant monitoring of work-related emails and messages on their devices, leading to imbalanced work-life distribution.

The Bill comes with challenges. There is no standard for permissible work hours across sectors. Some professions require round-the-clock availability or operate across different time zones. Opponents assert that this right dilutes the freedom of trade and contractual autonomy. Tracking enforcement is difficult. Nevertheless, this right is supported by constitutional principles and human rights frameworks.

The right to disconnect emanates from the principles of the Indian Constitution, especially Article 21 (The Right to Life), which the Judiciary has zealously enlarged to protect socio-economic rights, and Directive Principles of State Policy, like Article 39(e) (protecting the health of workers), Article 41 (Right to Work), and Article 42 (Provision of just and humane conditions of work).

This right is embodied in principles enshrined across various international human rights frameworks. Firstly, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, provides the right to work, just conditions of work, just and favourable remuneration (Article 23), the right to rest and leisure, and reasonable working hours (Article 24). These provisions strengthen the right to disconnect and ensure overtime wages for working during out-of-work hours. Secondly, consistent allocation of work to employees during out-of-work hours may violate several provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, including the right to life (Article 6), especially considering its expansive interpretation by the General Comment 36 of 2018, and Article 17, which protects individuals from unlawful interferences with their private lives. Consistently subjecting employees to work beyond ordinary hours may also be construed as forced labour (Article 8). Thirdly, the right to disconnect also finds support from the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, 1966, particularly its provisions that include the right to choose work freely (Article 6), fair wages, healthy working conditions, and rest, leisure, and reasonable limitation of working hours (Article 7 (a), (b), and (d)). The right to disconnect is a stepping stone to attaining the highest possible standard of physical and mental health for employees (Article 12). Similar provisions are also enshrined in the Banjul Charter (Article 15). Justifications for this right also arise from various International Labour Organisation texts, such as the 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, Hours of Work (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1930, Night Work Convention, 1990, etc.

Hence, the right to disconnect enjoys support from numerous international human rights conventions, and the Bill, if passed, will fortify India’s commitment to protecting human rights. A similar Bill was introduced in 2019, but did not proceed towards enactment. Only time will tell whether this Bill sees the light at the end of the legislative tunnel or collapses midway.

India ratified the ILO’s Hours of Work Convention in 1921, embedding its principles in laws like the Factories Act of 1948, and in the soon to be enforced Occupational Safety, Health, and Working Conditions Code. However, the ILO’s ability to enforce its conventions is limited, relying primarily on moral persuasion rather than sanctions.

This became more apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic, where several Indian states suspended labour laws, extending shifts to 12 hours and weekly limits to 72 hours, contradicting ILO guidelines. In 2024, the State of Karnataka attempted to implement 14-hour daily shifts for IT workers, while the State of Tamil Nadu proposed 12-hour factory schedules to attract electronics manufacturers. These decisions, framed as economic necessities overlook ILO findings that not only do extended working hours increase health risks and workplace injuries, but also hinders worker productivity, which declines after 48 weekly work hours. Corporate leaders have also contributed to normalising excessive work hours, with prominent figures calling for 70-hour and 90-hour workweeks.

Labour laws in India primarily protect blue-collar workers, and not those in supervisory or managerial roles. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, defines a ‘workman’ to exclude these positions. While traditional industrial workers receive overtime protections under the Factories Act, 1948, managers and IT staff do not. Contract workers are governed by a separate legislation,  which lacks basic benefits such as provident funds, insurance, and protection against arbitrary termination due to limited enforcement and statutory safeguards that typically apply only to permanent employees.

Indian judiciary has occasionally intervened, with the Supreme Court striking down the State of Gujarat’s 12-hour factory shifts in 2023. Grassroots movements, such as IT employee unions in Karnataka, have also achieved some success in opposing regressive policies. However, these victories remain exceptions. Some positive developments offer hope. Kerala’s 2024 initiative to limit gig worker shifts to 10 hours demonstrates that alternatives to excessive work hours are possible. Lessons can be learnt from countries like Japan and South Korea, who once known for extreme work cultures, have also implemented legislation to cap overtime and mandate health breaks.

In any case, India’s relationship with ILO conventions is complex. India has not ratified critical conventions such as Convention No. 87 on Freedom of Association and Convention No. 98 on Collective Bargaining. The Ministry of Labour and Employment have expressly stated that ILO guidelines are seen as non-binding, with India being cautious in ratifying ILO conventions to avoid any legally binding obligations. This selective compliance weakens unions and limits workers’ ability to challenge exploitative practices. The ILO’s 2024 Employment Report criticised India’s lax enforcement of labour standards, but the government often dismisses such critiques from the ILO.

Addressing India’s labour rights challenges requires a multi-faceted approach, since the enforcement of labour laws are a challenge in the country due to complex regulations, limited resources, a large informal sector, corruption, and weak penalties. The ILO can potentially step in here. While the ILO has limited enforcement mechanisms for addressing labour violations, it can take some actions based on past precedents. When a country fails to comply with ratified conventions, the ILO can establish a Commission of Inquiry to investigate persistent and serious violations. This high-level investigative procedure has been used 14 times to date. In extreme cases, the ILO Governing Body can invoke Article 33 of the ILO Constitution, which allows recommending actions to the International Labour Conference to secure compliance. This was first used in 2000 against Myanmar for widespread forced labour violations. While the ILO lacks direct sanctioning power, it can apply diplomatic and reputational pressure through its supervisory mechanisms. However, the effectiveness of such measures remains limited.

The ILO’s founding vision of dignity and productivity coexisting remains relevant. Realising this vision in India demands more than just laws; it requires a collective commitment from government, industry, and the society to prioritise worker well-being alongside economic growth. Only by doing so can India ensure that its economic success truly benefits all its citizens.

The fundamental issue for the Supreme Court was whether the Riders were in an ‘employment relationship’ as defined by the ILO Employment Relationship Recommendation, 2006 (No 198). This is necessary for trade union rights under Article 11. According to Lord Lloyd-Jones and Lady Rose, the wide and valid substitution clause negated the ‘employment relationship’: ‘Such a broad power of substitution is, on its face, totally inconsistent with the existence of an obligation to provide personal service which is essential to the existence of an employment relationship within article 11’ [69].

With respect, the reasoning of the CAC and the Supreme Court is flawed and is a misapplication of the ILO instrument. Having found that the substitution clause was valid, and conferred a broad contractual power to delegate work to substitutes, the CAC declined to examine any other features of the work arrangement. And in a surprising aside, the CAC also ‘appears to have accepted Deliveroo’s submission that the new terms were permissible even if they had been introduced by Deliveroo to defeat the claim and to prevent the Riders from being classified as workers’ [23].

The Preamble to the ILO Recommendation makes clear that it should be applied purposively: ‘employment or labour law seeks, among other things, to address what can be an unequal bargaining position between parties to an employment relationship’. To this end, policies on employment relationships must ensure effective protection for ‘the most vulnerable workers, young workers, older workers, workers in the informal economy, [and] migrant workers’. The context of food delivery work – highly casualised and often performed by precarious migrant workers – is at the core of these concerns.

The test of employment relationship must allow ‘a broad range of means for determining the existence of an employment relationship’. It is flatly inconsistent with this approach to treat any one factor as determinative, like personal work. Indeed, the Court of Appeal in the Foster Carers’ case did not treat the absence of a contract as determinative but considered a broad range of factors in applying the legal test under Article 11.

Furthermore, there ought to be ‘a legal presumption that an employment relationship exists where one or more relevant indicators is present’. The Supreme Court undertook a roving review of the employment situation of the Riders, focusing on the precarious and casual nature of their contracts, to justify its conclusion that they were not in an ‘employment relationship’ [71]. Again, the Recommendation requires a court to consider whether there were any indicative factors favouring inclusion and giving rise to a presumption of status. Here, there were many such factors: the typical level of remuneration of Riders; the presentation of standard terms on a take-it-or-leave-it basis; and the inability of Riders to negotiate their own fees in any meaningful way. Finally, it is simply untrue to say that ‘an obligation’ to provide personal service is ‘essential’ to the legal test under the ILO Recommendation. The instrument highlights the potential relevance of ‘the fact that the work…must be carried out personally by the worker’. This is concerned more with what happened, the primacy of facts, rather than the contractual obligations between the parties.

As the preamble and the structure of the legal test make clear, the criteria are designed to ensure the inclusion of ‘the most vulnerable workers’ within the scope of the category. This requires a court to avoid what Martha Nussbaum has described as ‘lofty formalism’. Wise ‘perception’ demands that judges attend to the real disadvantages of people in their day-to-day lives. In this sense, Deliveroo represents a failure of judicial ‘perception’ and a triumph of ‘lofty formalism’.

Having misapplied the relevant law to the employment situation of Riders, the Supreme Court then proceeded to misapply the substantive law on freedom of association under Article 11. According to the Supreme Court, ‘there is nothing in the UK legislation to stop the Riders from forming their own union…There is also nothing to prevent Deliveroo from engaging in collective bargaining with Union to seek to agree the terms and conditions’ [75].

The ‘worker’ category is fundamental to all trade union rights under domestic law. Without worker status, anti-union discrimination can be perpetrated against self-employed Riders with legal impunity. This is because the relevant provisions, such as the detriment protections under TULRCA section 146, would not apply. Where organisers of strike action commit certain listed economic torts, it is possible to claim a ‘trade dispute defence’ under TULRCA. The scope of this ‘golden formula’ is limited to ‘a dispute between workers and their employer’ (section 244). If Riders are not workers, any dispute with Deliveroo is incapable of being a ‘trade dispute’. In these circumstances, as established in Wilson v UK (2002), ‘their freedom to belong to a trade union, for the protection of their interests, becomes illusory. It is the role of the State to ensure that trade union members are not prevented or restrained from using their union to represent them in attempts to regulate their relations with employers’ [46]. Even accepting that there is no positive obligation under Article 11 to maintain the Schedule A1 procedure, a minimal framework of voluntary collective bargaining depends upon fundamental legal protections from trade union victimisation. Without these minimal legal protections, the very foundations of the right to collective bargaining and the right that the trade union should be heard are removed. There is also the added spectre of competition law restrictions on collective activity which may bite once Riders are categorised as independent entrepreneurs.

There can be little doubt what Strasbourg would make of this mess. Whether the claimants can afford to wait years to bring their rights home is another matter.

Una revisión sistemática de la evidencia, llevado a cabo en el marco de un proyecto financiado por la OIT y la OIM, “Investigación para la acción”, examinó la literatura académica en la intersección de dos campos históricamente separados: la esclavitud moderna y los derechos de los niños, publicados entre 2000 y 2022. Este estudio reveló una escasez significativa de interrelación entre los dos campos. La revisión identificó 7.267 registros que se relacionaban de alguna manera con la esclavitud moderna o los derechos de las niñas y niños, mostrando un incremento de la literatura publicada dentro período de tiempo estudiado (18 registros en 2000 y 119 en 2021). Sin embargo, solo 345 registros avanzaron para un análisis adicional en gran parte debido a la falta de interrelación entre ambos campos. Esto demuestra que, aunque la esclavitud moderna es una cuestión que afecta los derechos de las niñas y niños, la literatura académica está descuidando abordar los derechos de las niñas y niños. Esto tiene implicaciones significativas para el desarrollo de legislación, políticas, programas de rehabilitación y prevención, e implicaciones prácticas. Esto en si también implica una violación de los derechos de las niñas y niños. El artículo 12 de la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos del Niño exige que se escuchen las voces de las niñas y niños en relación con todos los asuntos que les afectan. Por lo tanto, las voces de las niñas y niños deben informar las prácticas que pretenden prevenir, poner fin o disminuir los impactos de la esclavitud moderna. Si esto fuera así, no sería posible debatir la esclavitud moderna, y en particular la esclavitud moderna de las niñas y niños, sin abordar temas relacionados con los derechos de las niñas y niños.

El informe publicado sobre nuestra investigación, proporciona un análisis en profundidad de 153 artículos, los publicados entre 2015 y 2022. La figura 16 del informe, incluida anteriormente, muestra hasta qué punto los dos campos de la esclavitud moderna y los derechos de las niñas y niños se interrelacionan dentro de la literatura. Nuestra investigación muestra que los derechos de las niñas y niños y su marco legal general, son considerados como una herramienta positiva para abordar la esclavitud moderna, presentando beneficios para las niñas y niños en riesgo, experimentando y recuperándose de la esclavitud moderna. Con 124 registros (81%) que destacan esta relación positiva, es posible concluir que existe un acuerdo general en la literatura de que una mayor incorporación de los derechos de las niñas y niños en el marco de la esclavitud moderna sería valiosa.

Sin embargo, la forma en que esto se puede hacer en la práctica sigue siendo un punto de tensión. En particular, nuestra investigación reveló una tensión clave entre una postura paternalista / proteccionista a la esclavitud moderna que aboga por una prohibición general automática del trabajo infantil y el matrimonio infantil, junto con otras formas de esclavitud y explotación modernas, y una posición que aboga por la agencia y la autonomía de las niñas y niños en su toma de decisiones en torno a su participación en tales prácticas. Existe una fuerte conexión en la literatura entre el derecho de la niña y el niño a ser escuchado y el tema del trabajo infantil. Aquí la atención se centró en las niñas y niños activistas que hacen campaña contra la estigmatización y la erradicación de su trabajo, abogando por edades legales más bajas para trabajar. Estos estudios afirmaron que los enfoques proteccionistas del trabajo infantil comprenden la discriminación basada en la edad e ignoran los contextos sociales, familiares y culturales de las niñas y niños. Por el contrario, las niñas y niños en determinados contextos abogan por la aplicación de las regulaciones laborales y la protección ofrecida por los derechos laborales (protección en el trabajo en lugar de trabajo) con salarios mínimos, limitaciones en las horas de trabajo y tiempo para el descanso y el ocio. La literatura también señaló el papel del trabajo infantil en proporcionar a las niñas y niños los medios para realizar sus derechos, como la educación, la salud y la alimentación. Por el contrario, la literatura cuestionó si las niñas y niños son capaces de entrar en prácticas potencialmente explotadoras con plena autonomía, resaltando el papel de los padres y la comunidad local en la formulación de sus percepciones.

Si bien ningún derecho de las niñas y niños es más importante que otros (reconociendo la necesidad del cumplimiento de algunos derechos para realizar otros derechos– sin el cumplimiento del derecho a la vida, no se pueden cumplir otros derechos), la literatura aborda de manera más significativa los derechos a la educación, la salud, el desarrollo, la participación y el interés superior del niño. Pocos registros abordan la naturaleza interrelacionada y la interdependencia de los derechos del niño. Todas las formas de explotación afectan a los derechos de las niñas y niños de manera diferente, en diferentes puntos del ciclo de explotación y de manera diferente entre los distintos grupos de las niñas y niños. El enfoque de la literatura sobre algunos derechos de las niñas y niños apunta a una falta de comprensión del marco general que los derechos de las niñas y niños, y a la necesidad de ampliar el alcance de la investigación en esta área.

La esclavitud moderna de las niñas y niños es una cuestión que concierne los derechos de las niñas y niños. Por lo tanto, la investigación sobre este tema no debe eliminarse de la discusión de los derechos de las niñas y niños. El estudio demuestra que cuando los dos campos de la esclavitud moderna y los derechos del niño se interrelacionan, con una discusión significativa de ambos temas, resultan ideas críticas y de gran valor. Una mayor intersección entre ambas disciplinas contribuiría al desarrollo de legislación, políticas, programas y prácticas para combatir la esclavitud moderna y que estén informadas por derechos de las niñas y niños.

A systematic evidence review, for a project funded by the ILO and IOM ‘Research to Action’ scheme, examined academic literature at the intersection of two historically separate fields – modern slavery, and children’s rights – published between 2000 and 2022. It revealed a significant paucity of meaningful engagement across the two fields. The review identified 7,267 records that related in some way to modern slavery or children’s rights, with an increase in such literature published within this timeframe (18 records in 2000, and 119 in 2021). However, only 345 records were progressed for further analysis largely due to a lack of engagement with both fields. This shows that although modern slavery is a children’s rights issue, academic literature is neglecting to address children’s rights. This has significant implications for the development of legislation, policy, rehabilitation and prevention programmes, and practice. It is also revealing of a breach of children’s rights. Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requires that children’s voices are heard in relation to all matters affecting them. Children’s voices should therefore be informing practices that intend to prevent, end, or lessen the impacts of modern slavery. If this was so, it would not be possible to discuss modern slavery, and in particular the modern slavery of children, without addressing topics relating to children’s rights.

The report published on our research, provides an in-depth analysis of 153 papers, those published from 2015-2022. Figure 16 from the report, included above, shows the extent to which the two fields of modern slavery and children’s rights intersect within the literature. Our research showed that children’s rights, and the children’s rights framework, were generally assessed to operate as a positive tool for addressing modern slavery, presenting benefits for children at risk of, experiencing, and recovering from modern slavery. With 124 records (81%) highlighting this positive relationship, it is possible to conclude that there is general agreement in the literature that greater incorporation of children’s rights across the modern slavery framework would be of considerable value.

How this can be done in practice, however, remains a point of tension. In particular, our research revealed a key tension between a paternalist/protectionist stance to modern slavery that advocates for an automatic blanket ban of child labour and child marriage, alongside other forms of modern slavery and exploitation, and a position that advocates instead for children’s agency and autonomy in their decision making surrounding their involvement with such practices. There was a strong connection in the literature between a child’s right to be heard and the topic of child labour. Here the focus centred on child activists who campaign against the stigmatisation and eradication of their work, advocating for lower legal ages for work. These studies claimed that protectionist approaches to child labour comprise age-based discrimination and ignore children’s social, familial, and cultural contexts. Instead, children called for the enforcement of working regulations and the protection offered by working rights – protection in work rather than from work – with minimum wages, limitations on working hours, and time for rest and leisure. The literature also pointed to the role of child labour in providing children with the means to realise their rights, such as education, health, and food. Conversely, the literature questioned whether children are ever able to enter potentially exploitative practices with full autonomy, pointing at the role of parents and the local community in framing their perceptions.

Whilst no children’s rights are more important than others (acknowledging the need of some rights’ fulfilment in order to realise other rights – without the fulfilment of the right to life, no other rights can be fulfilled), the literature engaged more meaningfully with rights to education, health, development, participation, and the best interests of the child. Few records addressed the interrelated nature and interdependency of children’s rights. All forms of exploitation affect children’s rights differently, at different points in the cycle of exploitation, and differently across distinct groups of children. The focus of the literature on a few children’s rights points to a lack of understanding of the children’s rights framework, and a need to widen the scope of research in this area.

The modern slavery of children is a child rights issue. Therefore research on this topic should not be removed from discussion of children’s rights. This review has shown that where the two fields of modern slavery and children’s rights have intersected, with meaningful discussion of both topics, it is of considerable value and offers critical insights. A expansion of such engagement would improve the possibility that modern slavery legislation, policies, programmes and practices were informed by the children’s rights framework

Image description: Woman holds a handwritten pink sign which reads ‘A woman’s body is not yours to take: I am a sexual abuse survivor and I will not be silenced’

Sexual harassment and cultural norms are inextricably linked. One need look no further than Cambodia’s Labour Law, which is not alone in conceptualising sexual harassment as a violation of female decency and modesty.  However, at the level of international law, sexual harassment is understood as a violation of rights to equality and non-discrimination, not on essentialised gender stereotypes. 

In Geneva, a discussion is taking place this week that could significantly realign the international-level vision of fundamental labour rights. The International Labour Conference  – an annual meeting of governments, employers’ organisations and trade unions from the 187 member States of the International Labour Organization (ILO) – is debating whether and how health and safety should be included among the ILO’s fundamental principles and rights at work. This outcome would have important ramifications for conceptions of labour rights, labour market policies, trade agreements, and labour law regimes across the world.

This debate is the latest phase in a slow evolution in the status of working conditions rights at the international level. Early twenty-first century labour law, as I pointed out a decade ago, should be understood as, in part, a struggle over the role, significance, and regulation of conditions of work, encompassing health and safety but also wages, working hours, and waged labour’s support for, and burdens on, family life.

Decent working conditions are routinely recognised in the job quality literatures as essential components of working life. A model of unacceptable work that I co-designed, for example, includes risks to health and wellbeing (both physical and mental) as a fundamental indicator of unacceptability on which policy intervention is urgently needed, together with other dimensions of working conditions such as wages that are too low to satisfy basic needs and both excessive and insufficient working hours.

Yet at the dawn of this century, conditions of work were strikingly subordinate in the most prominent ILO policy and legal discourses. The selection of labour rights in the 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work was confined to the rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining and to freedom from forced labour, child labour and discrimination. In the broader policy realm, working conditions were conspicuously underplayed in the ILO’s contributions to the debates on economic globalisation.

Subsequently, a reframing of the status of working conditions has gradually evolved. The global economic crisis was associated with the substantial reformulation of labour rights policies across the key transnational actors. Within the ILO, the 2008 Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization placed working conditions among the core objectives of the Organization, a stance that was reinforced in the wake of the financial crisis in the 2009 Global Jobs Pact. As I also noted at the time, the elevation of working conditions rights can be discerned in the global project of regulating domestic work that intensified in the wake of the Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No 189). Domestic work laws have brought with them a vision of working conditions entitlements as among the most crucial labour rights, at the heart of the labour relation and applicable to all working relationships.

Fast forward a decade and the ILO’s 2019 Centenary Declaration for the Future of Work in its call for ‘adequate protection’ for all workers referred not just to the fundamental rights but to an adequate minimum wage and maximum limits on working time, as well as safety and health at work, which it characterised as fundamental to decent work.

It would be welcome if health and safety were to take up its rightful, even self-evident, place among the ILO’s fundamental principles and rights at work. This expansion would reflect the steadily growing recognition over the last decade that working conditions rights are among the essential foundations of a decent working life. It may even accelerate efforts by policy actors to secure those rights that lie just beyond safety and health’s (porous) borders, to decent wages, sustainable working time, and respect for family life.